Water infrastructure proposal creates stir among Dighton abutters

A potential development on Elm Street in Dighton has caused some concern among abutters.

By Christopher Nichols

The Taunton Daily Gazette, Taunton, MA

By Christopher Nichols

Posted May. 18, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Updated May 18, 2012 at 6:03 PM

By Christopher Nichols

Posted May. 18, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Updated May 18, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Dighton

» Social News

A potential development on Elm Street in Dighton has caused some concern among abutters.

According to the developers at a March 7 meeting of the Board of Selectmen, the proposed assisted living facility located adjacent to Hunter’s Hill will consist of approximately 250 units and has the potential to create 200 to 300 jobs. The development is estimated to cost $40 million.

Abutters of the proposed site, however, became concerned after the developers petitioned the Dighton Water District to extend the district boundaries down Elm Street almost to the Somerset line.

Extending the main

A petition for inclusion in the Dighton Water District was received by the district on March 15 and contained the signatures of ten property owners on Elm Street.

According to the act that established the district, the Board of Commissioners is required to present to voters any petition for inclusion in the district that is signed by the owners of the majority of the real estate.

The ten property owners who signed the petition combine to represent a majority of the real estate that would be included in the district — if the petition is accepted by voters.

At the May 8 meeting of the commissioners, Elm Street resident Ronald Carr presented a petition signed by 30 Elm Street residents requesting that the district not be extended down their street.

“I submitted this petition, not just for myself, but for everyone who signed it,” Carr said. “I submitted it to the commissioners on their behalf.”

These 30 residents do not combine to represent a majority of the real estate that would be accepted, and the commissioners did not make a motion to formally receive the petition at their meeting.

Commissioner Patrick Menges said he would personally receive the petition and look into the matter. He also said if the commissioners receive a petition for inclusion signed by the owners of the majority of the real estate, it must go before district voters for acceptance, and any petition to remain excluded would only “alert the commissioners to opposition.”

Furthermore, if the petition for inclusion comes before voters at a district meeting, the Elm Street residents who do not want to become part of the district will not have a vote — since they are currently not district residents.

“Now we don’t have a say in this matter. We don’t have a vote. (The commissioners) may let you speak (at district meeting); they may not… We feel like we’re being taken advantage of,” Carr said.

If the main is extended down Elm Street, the residents that would be able to access district water — regardless of whether they connect to the main or not — would be required to pay taxes to the district. If residents choose not to connect to the main, they would not have to pay any fees to the district.

Page 2 of 2 -
Kingsley property

Shortly after signing the petition in favor of extending the district boundaries, Elm Street resident Bruce Kingsley sent a notarized letter to the commissioners requesting that his name be removed from the petition in favor and added to the petition against extending district boundaries.

Kingsley said he originally signed the petition for inclusion in the district because he was in a hurry and didn’t fully consider what he was signing. After talking it over with neighbors, he changed his stance both for their sake and to keep his land preserved as open space.

“I know it would make my property worth more with the water line, but it’s not worth it with my neighbors. It’s not fair to my neighbors,” Kingsley said.

He owns about 130 acres on Elm Street, and if his name is removed from the petition for inclusion, Menges said this petition might no longer contain a majority of the real estate.

If this is the case, Menges said the commissioners “could not and would not go forward” with extending district boundaries, but he was unsure if a notarized letter could legally remove Kingsley’s name from the petition.

Menges said he will seek legal counsel on this issue before the commissioners take any action.

Two articles related to this extension of district boundaries were originally placed on the Annual District Meeting set for May 24, but they were removed due to these complications and because no plan for the facility has been approved or received by the planning board, Menges and Commission Chair Paul Joly said.

Heidi Swist, office manager for the Planning Board, confirmed that the board has not received any plans for this proposed development.

Funding for the extension

The manner in which the extension would be funded is also uncertain.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 80 Section 1 states that if a limited area benefits from a public improvement approved by a vote of a board, the cost will be proportionately shared by the improved properties based upon the value of the benefit – meaning all the residents on Elm Street that would become part of the district would share the cost.

Article IX Section 1 of the district bylaws state that any person who requests a main extension will cover the cost of said extension.

Menges said he was uncertain which law would apply and, if Article IX applies, whether the costs would be covered solely by the developers or by all those who signed the petition for inclusion.

He said he will seek the advice of counsel on this matter as well before the commissioners take any action.